gnew’2004 – 15/03/2004 datatag project status & perspectives olivier martin - cern...

GNEW’2004 – 15/03/2004

DataTAG project Status & Perspectives

Olivier MARTIN - CERN

GNEW’2004 workshop

15 March 2004, CERN, Geneva

2Final DataTAG Review, 24 March 2004March 15, 2004 2

Presentation outline

Project overview Testbed characteristics and evolution Major networking achievements Where are we? Lambda Grids Networking testbed requirements Acknowledgements Conclusions


DataTAG Mission

EU US Grid network research High Performance Transport protocols

Inter-domain QoS

Advance bandwidth reservation

EU US Grid Interoperability

Sister project to EU DataGRID

TTransransAAtlantictlantic G Gridrid


http://www.datatag.orghttp://www.datatag.org

Project partners


Funding agencies

Cooperating Networks


EU collaborators

Brunel University

CERN

CLRC

CNAF

DANTE

INFN

INRIA

NIKHEF

PPARC

UvA

University of Manchester

University of Padova

University of Milano

University of Torino

UCL


US collaborators

ANL

Caltech

Fermilab

FSU

Globus

Indiana

Wisconsin

Northwestern University UIC

University of Chicago

University of Michigan

SLAC

Starlight


Workplan

WP1: Establishment of a high performance intercontinental Grid testbed

(CERN)

WP2: High performance networking (PPARC)

WP3 Bulk data transfer validations and application performance

monitoring (UvA)

WP4 Interoperability between Grid domains (INFN)

WP5 & WP6 Dissemination and project management (CERN)


IntegrationIntegration

DataTAG/WP4 frameworkDataTAG/WP4 framework and relationships and relationships

HICB/HIJTB

InteroperabilityInteroperabilitystandardizationstandardization

HEP applications,HEP applications,Other experimentsOther experiments


Testbed evolution The DataTAG testbed evolved from a simple 2.5 Gb/s

Layer3 testbed (Sept. 2002) into an extremely rich multi-vendor 10 Gb/s Layer2/Layer3 testbed (Sept. 2003) Alcatel, Chiaro, Cisco, Juniper, PRocket Exclusive access to the testbed is granted through an advance

testbed reservation application Direct extensions to Amsterdam UvA/Surfnet (10G) & Lyon

INRIA/VTHD (2.5G) Layer 2 extension to INFN/CNAF over GEANT & GARR

using Juniper’s CCC Layer 2 extension to the OptiPuter project at UCSD

(University of California San Diego) through Abilene and CENIC under way.

1st L2/L3 Transatlantic testbed with native 10Gigabit Ethernet access.


Cisco7606

r04chiCisco7609 stm16

(T-Systems)

r05chi-JuniperM10

r06chi-Alcatel7770

r05gva-JuniperM10

r06gvaAlcatel7770

SURFNET

stm16(Colt)backup+projects

s01chiExtreme S5i

VTHD/INRIAstm16

(FranceTelecom)

Chicago Geneva

ONS15454

Alcatel 1670 Alcatel 1670

SURFNETCESNET

ONS15454

stm64(GC)

CNAFGEANT

Linux PCs

Linux PCs

STM64

[email protected] last update: 20030909

Linux PCs

Juniper T320 Juniper T320

Linux PCs

JuniperM10

GEANT

Cisco7609

Linux PCs

StarLight Cisco6509

StarLight Force10

ABILENE

1G ethernet

2.5G STM16

10G ethernet

10Gbps Optical wave (T-Systems)

VTHD/INRIAAlcate l7770

10G STM64

DataTAG testbed phase 1 (2.5Gbps)

DataTAG testbed phase 2 (10Gbps) simplified


DataTAG testbed

Alcatel

Chiaro

Cisco

Juniper

PRocket


Main networking achievements (1)

Internet landspeed records have been beaten one after the other by the DataTAG project partners and/or teams closely associated with DataTAG: Atlas Canada lightpath experiments during iGRID2002 (Gigabit

Ethernet) and Telecom World 2003 (10Gigabit Ethernet, aka WAN-PHY)

New Internet2 landspeed record (I2 LSR) by Nikhef/Caltech team (SC2002)

FAST, GridDT, HS-TCP, Scalable TCP experiments (DataTAG partners & Caltech)

Intel 10GigE tests between CERN (Geneva) and SLAC (Sunnyvale) (CERN, Caltech, Los Alamos Nationa Laboratory, SLAC)

2.38 Gbps sustained rate, single flow, 1TB in one hour I2 LSR awarded during Internet2 Spring member meeting (April 2003)


ATLAS Canada Lightpath trials

TRIUMF Vancouver & CERN Geneva through Amsterdam

CANARIE2xGbE

circuits StarLight SURFnet 2xGbE

circuits

NetherLight

“A full Terabyte of real data was transferred at rates equivalent to a full CD (680MB) in under 8 seconds and a DVD in under 1 minute” Wade Hong et al 09/2002

Subsequent 10GigE WAN-PHY Experiments during Telecom World 2003

Bringing effective data transfer rates below one second per CD!

March 15, 2004 16

On Feb. 27-28 2003, a On Feb. 27-28 2003, a terabyte of data was transferred in terabyte of data was transferred in 3700 seconds3700 seconds by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 by S. Ravot of Caltech between the Level3 PoP in Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the PoP in Sunnyvale near SLAC and CERN through the TeraGrid router at StarLight from memory to memory TeraGrid router at StarLight from memory to memory with with a single TCP/IPv4 stream. a single TCP/IPv4 stream. This achievement translates to This achievement translates to anan average rate of 2.38 Gbps average rate of 2.38 Gbps (using large windows and (using large windows and 9kB “jumbo frames”). This beat the former record by a 9kB “jumbo frames”). This beat the former record by a factor of ~2.5 and factor of ~2.5 and used the 2.5Gb/s link at 99% efficiency.used the 2.5Gb/s link at 99% efficiency.

10GigE Data Transfer Trial10GigE Data Transfer Trial

European CommissionEuropean Commission

Huge distributed effort, 10-15 highly skilled people monopolized for several weeks!

http://www.cern.ch/


10G DataTAG testbed extension to Telecom World 2003 and

Abilene/Cenic

Sponsors: Cisco, HP, Intel, OPI Sponsors: Cisco, HP, Intel, OPI (Geneva’s Office for the Promotion of (Geneva’s Office for the Promotion of Industries & Technologies), Services Industries & Technologies), Services

Industriels de Geneve, Telehouse Industriels de Geneve, Telehouse Europe, T-SystemsEurope, T-Systems

On September 15, 2003, the DataTAG On September 15, 2003, the DataTAG project was the first transatlantic testbed project was the first transatlantic testbed offering direct 10GigE access using offering direct 10GigE access using Juniper’sJuniper’s VPN layer2/10GigE emulation.VPN layer2/10GigE emulation.



Latest IPv4 & IPv6 I2LSR were awarded, live from the Internet2 fall member meeting in Indianapolis, to Caltech & CERN during Telecom World 2003: May 6, 2003:

987 Mb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream October 1, 2003

5.44 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva and Chicago: 1.1TB in 26 minutes or one 680MB CD in 1 second

More records have been established by Caltech & CERN since then: November 6, 2003:

5.64 Gb/s single TCP/IP v4 stream between Geneva and Los Angeles (CENIC PoP) across DataTAG and Abilene.

November 11, 2003, 4 Gb/s single TCP/IP v6 stream between Geneva and Phoenix (Arizona) through

Los Angeles February 24, 2004

6.25 Gb/s with 9 streams for 638 seconds, i.e. half a terabyte transferred between CERN in Geneva and the CENIC PoP in Los Angeles across DataTAG and Abilene.


Internet2 landspeed record history (IPv4&IPv6)

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

Month Mar-00 Apr-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Feb-03 May-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Nov-03Month

Evolution of the I2LSR in Gigabit/second

IPv4 (Gb/s)

IPv6 (Gb/s)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Month Mar-00 Apr-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Feb-03 May-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Nov-03

Month

Internet2 landspeed record history(in terabit-meters/second)

IPv4 terabit-meters/second)

IPv6 (terabit-meters/second)

Impact of a single multi-Gb/s flow on the Abilene backbone


Significance of I2LSRs to the Grid?

Essential to establish the feasibility of multi-Gigabit/second single stream IPv4 & IPv6 data transfers: Over dedicated testbeds in a first phase Then across academic & research backbones Last but not least across campus networks Disk to disk rather than memory to memory Study impact of high performance TCP over disk servers

Next steps: Above 6Gb/s expected soon between CERN and Los Angeles

(Caltech/CENIC PoP) across DataTAG & Abilene Goal is to reach 10Gb/s with new PCI Express buses Study alternatives to standard TCP (Reno)

Non-TCP transport (Tsunami, SABUL/VDT) HS-TCP, Scalable TCP, H-TCP, FAST, Grid-DT, Wesley+, etc…



QoS

Layer2:VLAN

Layer2:VLAN

Juniper M10

1 GE bottleneck IP-Qos configured

Layer2: VLAN

Layer2: VLAN

AF AF

Geneva

BE

BE

Advance bandwidth reservation

GARA extensions

AAA extensions


Where are we?

The DataTAG project came up at exactly the right time: Back in the late 2000, 2.5 Gb/s looked futuristic 10GigE, especially host interfaces, did not really exist

However, it was already very clear that the standard TCP stack (Reno/Newreno) was problematic Much hope was placed on autotuning (Web100/Net100) & ECN/RED

like solutions Actual bit error rates of transatlantic circuits were over-estimated

Much better shape than expected on over-provisioned R&D backbones such as Abilene, Canarie, GEANT For how long? One of the strongest proof made by DataTAG is the extreme

vulnerability of production R&D backbones in the presence of high performance flows (i.e. 10GigE or even less)


Where are we (cont)?

For many years the Wide Area Network has been the bottlemeck, this is no longer the case in many countries, thus making the deployment of data intensive Grid infrastructure, in principle, possible, e.g. EGEE the DataGrid successor

Recent I2LSR records show, for the first time ever, that the network can be truly transparent and that throughput is only limited by the end hosts and/or campus network infrastructures. Challenge shifted from getting adequate bandwidth to deploying

adequate LANs and cybersecurity infrastructure as well as making effective use of it!

Non-trivial transport protocol issues still need to be resolved The only encouraging sign is that this is now widely recognized But we are still quite far from converging on a practical solution?


Layer1/2/3 networking (1)

Conventional layer 3 technology is no longer fashionable because of: High associated costs, e.g. 200/300 KUSD for a 10G router

interfaces Implied use of shared backbones

The use of layer 1 or layer 2 technology is very attractive because it helps to solve a number of problems, e.g. 1500 bytes Ethernet frame size (layer1) Protocol transparency (layer1 & layer2) Minimum functionality hence, in theory, much lower costs (layer1&2)


Layer1/2/3 networking (2)

« Lambda Grids » are becoming very popular: Pros:

circuit oriented model like the telephone network, hence no need for complex transport protocols

Lower equipment costs (i.e. « in theory » a factor 2 or 3 per layer) the concept of a dedicated end to end light path is very elegant

Cons: « End to end » still very loosely defined, i.e. site to site, cluster to cluster

or really host to host Higher circuit costs, Scalability, Additional middleware to deal with circuit

set up/tear down, etc Extending dynamic VLAN functionality to the campus network is a

potential nightmare!


« Lambda Grids » What does it mean?

Clearly different things to different people, hence the « apparently easy » consensus!

Conservatively, on demand « site to site » connectivity Where is the innovation? What does it solve in terms of transport protocols? Where are the savings?

Less interfaces needed (customer) but more standby/idle circuits needed (provider)

Economics from the service provider vs the customer perspective?» Traditionally, switched services have been very expensive,

Usage vs flat charge Break even, switches vs leased, few hours/day Why would this change?

In case there are no savings, why bother? More advanced, cluster to cluster

Implies even more active circuits in parallel Even more advanced, Host to Host

All optical Is it realisitic?


Networking testbed requirements

Multi-vendor Unless a particular research group is specifically interested by the behaviour of TCP in

the presence of out of order packets, running high performance TCP tests across a Juniper M160 backbone is pretty useless.

IPv6 achievable performance vary widely between different vendors MPLS & QoS implementations also veary widely Interoperability

Dynamic Implies manpower & money

Partitionable Reservation application

Reconfigurable Avoid manual recabling, implies Electronic or Optical switch/patch panel

Extensible Extensions to other networks Implies collaboration

Not limited to network equipment, must also include high performance servers, high perf. Disks & NICs,

Coordination with other testbeds


Acknowledments

The project would not have accumulated so many successes without the active participation of our North American colleagues, in particular: Caltech/DoE University of Illinois/NSF iVDGL Starlight Internet2/Abilene Canarie

and our European sponsors and colleagues as well, in particular: European Union’s IST program Dante/GEANT GARR Surfnet VTHD

The GNEW2004 workshop is yet another example of successful collaboration between Europe and USA

gnew’2004 – 15/03/2004 datatag project status & perspectives olivier martin - cern...

Documents

datatag project

datatag abilenegoal

etcfinal datatag review

gbs single tcpip v6

gbs single tcpip v4

gbs link

single multigbs flow

single tcpipv4 stream